Posted by
Andrews on Monday, October 05, 2009 9:02:45 PM
I am sure it has been obvious that I think the debate over Obama's citizenship has been a bad idea. Even leaving aside the fact that I think the evidence simply isn't there ("
Can Hawaiians Travel Overseas?", "
An Impossible Argument to Lose", "
While I am Away... (A Question on "Natural Born")"), it is moot at this point. Unless someone produces incontrovertible evidence that he was born outside the US, there is very little chance anything will be done. In fact, even with incontrovertible evidence of birth outside of the US, between establishing the evidence's veracity and the legal proceedings which follow (I doubt his ego would allow him to resign), it would probably be 2011 before he is removed form office, leaving us with President Biden and the same advisors for two years, which hardly seems worth all the effort, provided there were any evidence.
However, as I wrote before ("
Think of the Impresison You Make", "
A Question About Double Standards"), in pursuing this line of argument, we have given the left exactly what they want. You see, no matter how much you may believe the Bingham dicta prove your case, to the general public those arguing Obama was born in Kenya sound like nuts, and the media has been fueling that fire. The more you protest that he should be removed, the more forged certificates you circulate the worse it becomes.
And that is my argument for a few other issues. For instant, the constant mention of Alinsky's
Rules for Radicals, or the claims that Obama is a socialist or a covert Moslem. Yes, Obama does seem to have sympathy with many socialist goals, and he does follow some of the principles laid down by Alinsky, but by explicitly mentioning them, you allow the press to paint you as a conspiracy theorist.
The worst part is that the same could be accomplished with better wording. Rather than calling Obama a socialist or communist, all you need to say is that his beliefs make him sympathetic to Zelaya, or that his political experience makes him more inclined to side with Russia than the fledgling eastern European democracies. By simply avoiding talk of secret agendas, overt communism or grand conspiracies, you can make the same point yet deny the media the chance to pillory the right.
I know, it is unfair. We should not have to walk on eggshells. The left can include Cynthia McKinney, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, and yet the press treats them as the mainstream, while every member of the right gets tarred as the next Fred Phelps. But, fair or not, that is the way things are. So, while making our case, we need to be constantly aware of how our message can be presented, how it can be used to make us appear unhinged. The media is good at it, they have been doing it for years, and we need to be aware of it. Whether you think Obama is a member of CP-USA or not, unless you have rock solid proof, you should not even imply as much. Explain how his policies are the same as the communists, that is fine, but don't even think of attaching the C word to him. The press is just waiting for that.
I know, some will think it cowardly, some will think it prevents us from making important points, but I can't care. If we are brave and make all those points, and in the process so alienate the middle that we become a minority party it won't matter. The truth, despite the claims of the left, is that the center is center-right. Just look at the ratings of Fox news, the fact that the Demcorats needed blue dogs to take congress or that Obama needed college students and massive minority turnout to win.That bodes well for Republicans, provided we can overcome the gatekeepers in the media. But we can only do that if we stop giving them the tools they need to convince the center we are lunatics.
So, call it what you want, but as the only other option is defeat, perhaps it is something to consider.
POSTSCRIPT
By the way, this in no way contradicts what I wrote in "
The Difficulty of Principle". I am not saying anything false, not am I avoiding any truths. I am not avoiding criticism of Obama's policies, nor am I skipping over any important points in the debate. Whether I say he has policies identical to communism or call him a communist makes no difference to listeners, except that the latter makes them doubt me. So why not favor the former and make the audience more receptive rather than latter and alienate them?
POSTSCRIPT II
And before anyone mentions my comparisons to Che or Allende, I know I am not always able to live up to the standards I set. Even knowing the media will use it to pillory the right, sometimes this guy acts too much like a third world dictator wannabe to not mention it. So, yes, I am aware I am not always living by the rules I set.